West Asia News and Discussions

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 14:39

abhischekcc wrote:Yes, Islamic banking (option 1) is a small part of global finance, or even Indian finance, and that non Islamic banks also offer these products. But that is not the worry point. The worry point is the use of banking/financial institutions for political purposes

Well, I was saying the same thing..First, India does not allow Islamic banking, period..RBI has seen some proposals, but it is a long way away if at all..

Now, banking for "political purposes" as you say, is possible to the limits of oversight of the bank...Banks in general, but foreign banks in particular, are heavily regulated by RBI...Even a sniff of anything funny, and they come down hard, really hard...Lawyers in our bank spend as much time trying to decipher "spirit of regs" issues for RBI as they do for ALL other regulators combined..And this is for relatively benign, pure commercial activities...Funny political activities will send any foreign bank straight back to their home country with a few India managers charged with criminal cases and all that..

Without taking names, a few years back, a couple of (very famous, very large, very well-connected globally) foreign institutions were "suspected" of doing funny things in the stock market on behald of Ketan Parikh - 2004 after the elections..It was said that some market insiders used them to send a message to the incoming Congress govt to "behave"...Nothing substantial was really proved...these two johines were FIIs then, but had long-pending applications for banking licenses, and were expecting to get them shortly...RBI not only kept those licenses for hold for a full 6 years, despite Finance ministers and Foreign Ministers from their home countries piling on the pressure though our MoF, but also effectively nuked their attempts to set up non-banking structures like NBFC, Mutual Funds etc in the country..It took a significant amount of continuous grovelling and undertakings of good behaviourr before these johnies were granted their license - finally 12 years after original application..

So dont worry about banks trying to peddle islamic influence -it takes an arm, a leg and a great deal more in India to peddle even a vanilla current account!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 May 2011 16:00

Speaking of Islamic banking... I know a case where a large French bank was offering Islamic Banking to people in one small EU country for expats from the Middle East. Basically, it simply took their deposits and did not pay interest - except some sort of "just" return based on their own profits. Of course, this "just" return often did not exist because the bank - at least on the papers the clients saw - did not make much profit. So these observant religious chaps got taken for a ride, for years. Fact.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 16:51

^^The whole Islamic banking thing is a bit of a fraud IMO...Pretty much anything and everything can be structured as "islamic"...I know only the superficial principles, but I would say even a United Breweries bond could be structured to be Islamic

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 16:56

"800-900" is possibly a lower estimate, some sources quote over a trillion. However, the statement has been loose enough so it has enough gaps to wriggle out "I never said..../comprehension problem" etc.

The pointer to "non-islamic" regular banks doing "Islamic finance" is perhaps an attempt at diverting attention from the reality of the mechanisms by which Saudi elite is suspected to have moved around funding for Islamic expansion. There are well known channels to follow up on GCC and KSA role in Islamic finance, and corresponding growth patterns, or where their declared intent of growth lies. Qatar probably has recently given orders to check or freeze Islamic finance activities in certain banking sectors - including foreign non-Islamic "banks" which has been interpreted by some quarters as an attempt to push out the "regular" banks with their regulatory frameworks as well as "Islamize" the entire banking industry, and protect the domestic islamic banking.

By all accounts these countries apparently are going in for more of the Islamic "finance" rather than less, and project increasing share of the Islamic banking within global banking industry. Many of the regular "banks" that have been touted here as somehow representing a "counter-example" in promoting "Islamic finance" and hence free of "GCC" or KSA influence should perhaps be explored for possible "investments" traceable to Saudi elite? I am sure experts are aware of articles that try to do exactly that!

JEM,

There has been for decades a sustained effort by the Saudis to impress their ideology on the Indian Muslim population with some success, I’m sure. But it would be an improper assessment to take that to mean that the Saudis will be able to make any fundamental change. Democracy is a very tough defender of its condition, and the right of speech within India does things to such ideological approaches that the Saudis have no clue about how to work around.

But you dont really have "right of free speech" at least where Islam in India is concerned - do you? You cannot criticize even, any aspect of its functioning, ideology, doctrine, institutions. Do you see even a trace of such open debates anywhere in the media, public discourse, or even within the parliament?

Plus, our own Islamic theologians – being SDREs like us and not entirely unfamiliar with the situation in Saudi – are not about to lie down and be dictated to. They have their own ideas... Does this mean that the Muslim community ideologues will not try to revive their past position within India? Of course, not. They will try. Will they succeed? Depends on how the rest of Indians deal with it.

Sure, but then Deoband needed As Sudais to come and mediate about the "controversial" head. Look up the statements and position of Darul Ulum Nadyad about the importance of the "Arab" and "Arabic" in subcontinental Islam. Between these two Darul's they cover a lot of IM opinion.

Truth is often the best weapon. What we need to do is to call it as it is. Satyameva Jayate and all that.

Yes - if it is not made a "rashtryia" offence to speak the truth. Then surely some will say that "truth" is relative, and it depends on who is speaking it. We have the same opinion often peddled here on the forum by certain schools of thought - who says is more important than what is being said. So "truth" from an "undesirable" voice is not truth - as per dominant themes in academics, professionals and politicians - all perhaps closely linked on the sly with hidden political affiliations and mutually shared benefits. "Truth" in India will be subject to political approval in India - especially where anything to do with Islam is concerned.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 17:34

somnath wrote:^^^Singha-ji, that does nothing to Saudi, but impacts (muslim) Indians who might want a go at a better life for themselves...why do you want to circumscribe their right to work for their own prosperity, as long as it isnt anything illegal? By that logic, the Pashupatinath in Nepal will only employ Namboodiri brahmins from India, no one else - should we stop that as well?

You are a genius Somnath to come up with that == between preferential employment in KSA (nation) and Pashupathinath temple.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 17:39

somnath wrote:I will just clear up this whole alarm around Islamic finance.
...

Somnath, Most of use know what Islamic banking is and rest of us can google on it to get the basic understanding.

The point here is that KSA banks (especially the ones mentioned by Brihaspatiji) manage Jakat funds too. I was talking about that aspect only with ldev.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 17:39

The discussion here is broader than Islamic finance, but strange inferences from half-baked newspaper reports are used to arrive at dubious ideological conclusions..

So restrictions on Islamic Banking in Qatar is to "push out regular banks" and promote "domestic islamic banking"...

Facts...
1. Islamic banking accounts for 15-16% of the Qatari banking market, though it is a fast growing segment..
2. >90% of the overall banking market in Qatar is with local banks (most of whom are either state-owned, or "family"-owned)...the largest three - QNB, CBQ and Doha - are regular commercial banks, who also offer islamic products, account of >70% of the market...Foreign banks have <10% marketshare, with reasonable presence on the islamic side as well..

Qatar has decided to restrict islamic banking now only to specialised islamic banks, ostensibly to ensure that deposits raised through islamic deposits are not used to fund non-islamic loans, or vice versa...

Who does this impact the most? No prizes for guessing - CBQ, QNB and Doha - large sovereign-owned banks...Who does it benefit? Specialised islamic banks like Qatar islamic bank - small sovereign owned banks...

Anyone who understands even an iota of islamic banking products in GCC know that mubadala or islamic deposits are used interchangeably with regular deposits..Soemtime back mubadala deposits yielded a higher Net Interest Margin (NIM) to the bank, so the bank enticed clients to that through a higher interest rate (or profit)...Over time, that NIM arbitrage has shrunk, and banks have gotten tactical about it..But for most cleints, it doesnt matter if the product is Islamic or not - they just pick the more profitable variant...

In this case, what will happen is that the islamic portfolios of regular banks will shrink as they are sold off to Islamic banks...If anything, the move might turn out to be counterproductive for the growth of islamic bankiing industry per se in Qatar in the shot run, as the like of QIB have far smaller distribution than the like of QNB/Doha et al...Though individual banks like QIB will prosper at the margin as they will have monopoly over the fastest growing segment of the market...

Now this is supposed to be an example of using spreading "islamic" political influence through banking?! Some hypotheses...If the Saudis or anyone wanted to buy "influence", they would try and buy up large global conventional banks..Incremental messing around with regs of domestic islamic finance is a question of "left pocket right pocket", buys zero influence for the sovereign even if that was the objective...And while some GCC sovereign wealth funds (not Saudi though - unless Alwaleed is thought to be a "conservatice Saudi elite"! he has a very very small stake in Citi now) have stakes in western banks now - the amounts are really insignifcant to be material...Instead of caviling over 900 and 1000 (neither of the two makes up for a material part of global finance) - people might want to seriously look at how financial market influences are really peddled...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 17:44

RamaY wrote: Somnath, Most of use know what Islamic banking is and rest of us can google on it to get the basic understanding.

The point here is that KSA banks (especially the ones mentioned by Brihaspatiji) manage Jakat funds too. I was talking about that aspect only with ldev.

As you already "know" how islamic banking works, I am sure you know how banking works as well, right? In that case, you should know that usage of any funds, zakat, A, B, C, XYZ or anything in a specific market is regulated by the regs of that market? So if Mashreq manages X dollars of zakat funds in UAE, it cannot use that money for anything at all in its branch in India (where it cannot raise zakat monies in any case)? In that case, how does Mashreq's zakat funds "buy it" any influence in India?

RamaY wrote:== between preferential employment in KSA (nation) and Pashupathinath temple

I wa exxagerating the point here..I realsie its not the same thing...Limited point was banning Indians from travellign to a specific place for work isnt a viable/feasible idea..

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 17:47

I personally do not have any issue with KSA wanting to employ only muslims. Infact I prefer they hire more Pakistanis as they are purer than IMs.

It is also not wrong for GoI to work closely with KSA to protect Indian interests, after all IMs are Indians too.

The problem is when GoI starts prostrating to KSA for future alms, especially when KSA shows such blatant racism based on religion. This must stop.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 17:50

somnath wrote: As you already "know" how islamic banking works, I am sure you know how banking works as well, right? In that case, you should know that usage of any funds, zakat, A, B, C, XYZ or anything in a specific market is regulated by the regs of that market? So if Mashreq manages X dollars of zakat funds in UAE, it cannot use that money for anything at all in its branch in India (where it cannot raise zakat monies in any case)? In that case, how does Mashreq's zakat funds "buy it" any influence in India?

Can Mr Mashreq donate some of those zakat funds to an Indian Madarsa thru a wire transaction in his bank?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 31 May 2011 18:08

Within KSA the relationship between the ruling family and the religious establishment is not without tensions. India's dialogue is with the ruling family which runs the government, not with the mutawa. It is impossible for the ruling family to veto the expansion of Islam by the religious establishment by restricting the flow of funds abroad, for building mosques, schools (madrassas?) etc.. It is upto the recipient country to establish and enforce and monitor stringent end use of fund criteria e.g. a mosque may be built with Saudi donations, but the imam for the mosque may not be a Saudi nominee or that a school may be built but it cannot be a maddarassa and must have a normal curriculum. Flow of funds via the grey market which can be misused is now heavily curtailed in the West e.g. almost all the Muslim hawala operators in the West have been forced out of business or are being watched round the clock by security services. India has to do the same. But the problem is India is that when the politicians themselves use hawala, how can it be stopped.

Indian interests will be served by broadening and deepening this dialogue with the Saudi ruling family and government and not by withdrawing into a shell as advocated by some people here.

As far as the quote below is concerned, I am sure that everyone is guilty, just as DIE or deracinated is thrown around with impunity thereby implying comparisons with RAPE, at least the DIE do not throw around worse epithets to describe saffron symphathizers. I think even the world saffron is not used on BRF so as not to offend the sensibilities of some people here. I am sure that the admins will step in when the name calling gets virulent. But for the record I do object using phrases such as DIE or words such as deracinated. But so long as they are permitted I see no reason not to call somebody or their views hysterical.

This behavior is becoming increasingly virulent on BRF, to attack the ideas by calling names, assigning adjectives, twisting words and such.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 31 May 2011 18:20

RamaY wrote:Can Mr Mashreq donate some of those zakat funds to an Indian Madarsa thru a wire transaction in his bank

He can, but then for that he doesnt have to be a bank with any presence in India..He can also be a chaiwallah in Jeddah and do it...What has that got to do with using "financial access" to influcen inslamic poltiics?

RamaY wrote:The problem is when GoI starts prostrating to KSA for future alms, especially when KSA shows such blatant racism based on religion. This must stop.

I dont think Indian govt is prostrating before anyone for "alms" - we never did that even when we needed alms....

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 May 2011 18:31

ldev wrote: Indian interests will be served by broadening and deepening this dialogue with the Saudi ruling family and government and not by withdrawing into a shell as advocated by some people here.

The problem of any discussion with the poster(s) like above is that they will make generic arbitrary remarks on behalf's of others rather than taking a stand by themselves on the specific issues raised.

One such example is above -- considering that no one on this thread has advocated "withdrawing into a shell" who can engage with the post above? This is a classic "you farted" technique. Instead of discussing the exact meaning of a strategic relationship with KSA where Sudais et al shake hands with Indian establishment and what that means, every inanity on the mother earth will be discussed rather than meaningful debate.

Terrible for the discussion quality this banana variety of discussion tactics.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 31 May 2011 18:34

Sanku mian , why so much heartburn , Sudais shaking hands with establishment means establishment asking him for muslim votes using his clout. It's as simple as that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 31 May 2011 19:10

Nepal as a society or political country gives religious rights to all faiths and nor does it teach that all faiths are nonsense and only hinduism is the right way.

there is no comparison. few countries in the world discriminate on the basis of religion the way KSA does. on top of that basic problem is that once they get the IMs all to themselves, it becomes a fertile ground to recruit and poison people. most of the IMs who took to serious terrorism first got 'turned' against their own motherland during stints of work in the gulf - usually KSA. KSA is not a isolationist cesspool - its a invasive ecosystem using oil money to export their terrorist ideology.

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 May 2011 19:32

devesh wrote:
UBanerjee wrote:The difference in engaging US & China is that- while they work to undermine India they are also massive, complex and grown-up civilizations that we can't afford to ignore. Watching out for EJs and Chini agents comes part and parcel with that. US may enable Pak- it also strangles Pak in the process and is our best bet to ensure the security of a multi-polar Asia. Chinese are our largest trading partners and serve as a check on the US.

We can afford to ignore the Saudis- beyond paying Rs. for oil. The US has already found out the cost of embracing the Saudi snake- the gain comes with serious pain. And they don't even have a massive domestic Muslim population and two Islamic neighbors at least one of which is an existential threat.

I don't think linkages should be ignored entirely- but there should be utmost wariness.

this is a serious misconception being peddled by MSM and DDM. it is a carefully constructed image of India and China going for each others' throats while US, the ever gentle middleman, comes in and plays big brother and makes peace...this is an insidious argument for several reasons.

1. the implicit logic is that Asia is incapable of figuring out a peaceful existence by itself.
2. it is taken for granted that India and China are enemies which are going to fight for dominance. this is the biggest deception because this argument totally ignores several millenniums of history.
3. India and China are dangerous like 20th century Germany.
4. other Asian countries better watch out and GUBO to the West if they want to survive!!!
5. US/West needs to meddle b/c otherwise Asia would be oppressed by India/China.

the bolded part leads to the above and many more such deliberately misleading or outright false claims. we need to stop eating up the DDM/MSM news on the supposed India/China rivalry.

the present Chinese racial nationalism is a result of Communist brainwashing which has been coopted by the West. free from these shackles, China is a very different country. and that is not that hard to come true!!!

I have already said it is a triangle relationship- not US/India vs. China. This is widely acknowledged to be true. Each leg of the triangle cooperates and competed with the other.

However wishing away Chinese aims and goals is not going to work by waving the flag of 2000 years ago with tears in our eyes. Things change over time. There is a lot of noise going on about "Indian expansionism" in China. China wants to be the center of gravity of the entire Asian ecosystem- under any govt, not just commies. By definition this means sidelining India. China for the first time is not facing landwards but is facing seawards and projecting into India's sphere increasingly. Chinese nationals are used to infiltrate Indochinese economic power hubs already. Don't down play this.

Sure maybe in the 200 year future these tensions will all have been resolved. In the 50 year future they are not going to so plan accordingly.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 31 May 2011 19:33

Chinmayanand wrote:Sanku mian , why so much heartburn , Sudais shaking hands with establishment means establishment asking him for muslim votes using his clout. It's as simple as that.

Precisely.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 19:34

Chinmayanand wrote:Sanku mian , why so much heartburn , Sudais shaking hands with establishment means establishment asking him for muslim votes using his clout. It's as simple as that.

this simplistic "vote banks politics" has become the fall back position, like a Plan B, to justify any and all misdoings of Cangress and its chamchas.....after all, we are a democracy and Cangress and its chamchas are doing what any democratic political party needs to do......

how many IM's know the name As Sudais??? not a lot. but how many deobandi leaders in IM community know As Sudais? the answer to that is obvious. this is the crux of the issue. As Sudais is not a vote bank politicking b/c common IM doesn't even recognize that name, 99% of the time. As Sudais hand-shaking is a signal to Wahhabis that we are ready to go GUBO for money in the future. when the Prime Minister of India shakes hands with an openly racist bigot spewing non-sense about Arab supremacy and decadence of Kafirs, it emboldens the Islamists, and cheapens and degrades the image of and the respect given to India.......why is the so hard to understand for the enlightened pseudo-seculars???

emboldening Indian Islamists is dangerous b/c even mango IM doesn't recognize Sudais, the Islamist IM leadership can be encouraged to be even more rabid in their proclamations b/c India's PM is GUBOing to radical Islamists anyway....

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 19:40

UBanerjee wrote:
I have already said it is a triangle relationship- not US/India vs. China. This is widely acknowledged to be true. Each leg of the triangle cooperates and competed with the other.

However wishing away Chinese aims and goals is not going to work by waving the flag of 2000 years ago with tears in our eyes. Things change over time. There is a lot of noise going on about "Indian expansionism" in China. China wants to be the center of gravity of the entire Asian ecosystem- under any govt, not just commies. By definition this means sidelining India. China for the first time is not facing landwards but is facing seawards and projecting into India's sphere increasingly. Chinese nationals are used to infiltrate Indochinese economic power hubs already. Don't down play this.

Sure maybe in the 200 year future these tensions will all have been resolved. In the 50 year future they are not going to so plan accordingly.

I'm not underestimating Chinese racial nationalism. but believing that "US is our only shot at a multi-polar Asia" is a serious delusion. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. no nation will be more happy to see PRC go ape shit than the US. PRC going Germany's way is the greatest fantasy of the US. they are hoping for such a scenario, so they can come in and divide up Asia into little pieces like they did 60 years ago....

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 31 May 2011 19:46

Incorrect reading of the situation IMO. If US wanted to draw PRC into a direct war they had 60 years to do so. Instead they have largely preserved open trade in Asia because of their economic interest. Indian and US interests somewhat align on this issue- until India becomes powerful enough to threaten what China is threatening now- that is, carving out a sphere of influence- then things will change. In the interim, use what is available to us.

Once again no need to always argue by analogy. We should evaluate the situation on its own merits- China is not Germany. Also nukes have changed the equation. This is all OT though so I think taking this elsewhere is better.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 19:58

^^^
nope, US doesn't want a direct confrontation with PRC. US would be very happy to seen PRC attack a bunch of countries, and for those countries to spend their resources and fight PRC while US generously hands out weapons and money to fight PRC. eventually, if needed, US would undertake direct intervention. but otherwise, the idea is to exhaust PRC and Asia in a protracted War stretching decades (war will be start and stop type situation). it's like the Iran-Iraq conflict during 80's. the same model will be the goal, except with larger and more populous countries, resulting in a larger catastrophe.

US doesn't have the appetite for another direct ground confrontation in Asia, like it did with Japan during WWII. their population can't take those kinds of wars anymore.....the huge cost in resources and man power is daunting for any country, even US.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 31 May 2011 20:19

Chinmayanand wrote:Sanku mian , why so much heartburn , Sudais shaking hands with establishment means establishment asking him for muslim votes using his clout. It's as simple as that.

True, it is quite as simple as that from the perspective of those doing the hand shaking (well actually the pay off is more than just vote bank in terms of elite network formation) -- the problem is however that from the perspective of the "other" party shaking the hand, this opportunity that has been given to them, will be exploited to "their" ends, some of their influence is already not very nice, and this will increase it further.

That is the crux after all (as has been explained by many others too)

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 31 May 2011 20:33

Who cares about what influence will it have ? Didin't MMS declare publically that IMs have the first right to the country's resources? Afzal guru is still having a gala time. Do you still think these crooked congressis think of this country ? Their only aim is to loot and plunder the country and they have decided to mortgage it to the US .
While scores of countrymen die at the hands of paki terrorists, economy is harmed by fake currency notes , diplomats and high ranking officials are humiliated by China and US, do you see these rats making noises or taking action ? They are afraid of losing power and their grip on this country. What matters to them is only Dilli ki kursi and ever fattening bank accounts in foreign land.They are no better than what tspa is to tsp .

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 20:36

They are no better than what tspa is to tsp .

an apt comparison. it might cause us heartburn, but it is very likely that Cangress is firmly moving in this direction. unless the Nehru clan at the top has a sea change in attitudes/leadership, Cangress is on the path towards TSPA style kameena-panthi.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 May 2011 21:30

Of course financial pontification will have to come to somehow to the rescue of the good name of "Islamic finance"! No problem with that - except that it was clearly mentioned that "that" was an "interpretation" of the Qatari order "in certain quarters" and not my personal opinion. Of course when the eagerness is to whitewash "Islamic banking/finance" in GCC/KSA hands as innocent or "insignificant" in terms of "volume" - and somehow attack the poster behind quoting such obnoxious [to pet ideologies] stuff - such small details are to be ignored.

Plenty can be posted on "Islamic finance" but will go OT. All this trouble started because of an article that simply explored the possible role played by Saudi elite in using "Islamic finance" and "Islamic banking" as a tool for aggressive soical engineering and proselytization. This was posted in turn to provide another angle for people to explore here - about the much touted motivational factor behind seeking "KSA" or GCC "investments" into India.

It is interesting to see who come out to defend or play-down negative aspects of entities, whenever anything is posted that appears to the defenders as undermining their pet ideologies. I agree it works on both sides of the political spectrum - but the colourful display of irrelevant adjectives and their comparisons show something else.

ldev - just a curious question to you: when you are saying that you have a right to freely ascribe a post/poster/article as "hysterical" because others have used "deracinated" to individuals/posters etc - are you not equating "hysteria" with "deracination"? Deracination means - literally - uprooted or lost connection/severed from "roots". While hysteria literally and originally meant neurotic conditions ascribed to the female uterus. Also now taken as uncontrolled laughter etc. There is a bit of comic sense attached to it - and of fun etc. You think you are comparing equals in slur?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 May 2011 21:33

devesh wrote:^^^
nope, US doesn't want a direct confrontation with PRC. US would be very happy to seen PRC attack a bunch of countries, and for those countries to spend their resources and fight PRC while US generously hands out weapons and money to fight PRC. eventually, if needed, US would undertake direct intervention. but otherwise, the idea is to exhaust PRC and Asia in a protracted War stretching decades (war will be start and stop type situation). it's like the Iran-Iraq conflict during 80's. the same model will be the goal, except with larger and more populous countries, resulting in a larger catastrophe.

US is willing to promote democracy and support the tibetan movements and it does leave the door open to back any pro democratic movement.

However, the PRC have an expansionist agenda and are literally claiming land in almost every border country. Just do a google. Vietnam almost traded blows this week with PRC. Its things like this is drawing countries, Japs, Aus to band together.

Coming anywhere near the straits of Hormuz is a big red line for hte US and is unlikely to take it lieing down. Which is why PRC is hesitant to go public or commit to Gwadar.

However, now that the US/KSA oil for security deal is pretty much over. The KSA is encouraging the PRC and India to partner with it for its security. If we back out, it is likely that the PRC navy is going have additional financing, bases in the peninsula etc. It doesn't help our energy security nor does it serve our strategic interests.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 21:51

shyamd ji,

agreed that India must be proactive in ME. there is no alternative. our own history teaches us that we need to keep tabs on the happenings in this region. and in modern day, b/c of oil, it is even more essential. and US is not willing to promote democracy shyamd ji. US is willing to promote poodles which will do its bidding. we have "empirical evidence" (Somnath's fondest two-worded phrase), in the form of US supporting military and Islamist dictatorships and yet, you continue to peddle this nonsense about US supporting democracies, etc. Tibet is a whole another ball game. they have feet in both camps. one in Dalai Lama and the other in PRC. they practically declared their intent to let PRC have Tibet permanently, and yet this fascination with US supporting Tibet!!!!

and which country has done the most to bolster and embolden PRC??? the answer is the US. that should pretty much sum up US motives in Asia. wrt India's angle with PRC, as SSridhar garu said recently, "we cannot afford not to have an arms race with PRC." that pretty much sums up my opinions on PRC. we cannot afford not to watch them carefully and counter them when they cross lines that affect us. but the bigger picture of US laying the ground work for PRC aggression should not be forgotten.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 May 2011 22:03

devesh wrote:shyamd ji,

agreed that India must be proactive in ME. there is no alternative. our own history teaches us that we need to keep tabs on the happenings in this region. and in modern day, b/c of oil, it is even more essential. and US is not willing to promote democracy shyamd ji.

The evidence from the recent ME unrest speaks otherwise - no matter how big a poodle the leaders were.

US is willing to promote poodles which will do its bidding. we have "empirical evidence" (Somnath's fondest two-worded phrase), in the form of US supporting military and Islamist dictatorships and yet, you continue to peddle this nonsense about US supporting democracies, etc. Tibet is a whole another ball game. they have feet in both camps. one in Dalai Lama and the other in PRC. they practically declared their intent to let PRC have Tibet permanently, and yet this fascination with US supporting Tibet!!!!

Read the CIA activities in the Tibetan unrest a few years ago. This is politics and how the US works, they talk with them and work against them at the same time. I suppose similar to what they do to us.

and which country has done the most to bolster and embolden PRC??? the answer is the US. that should pretty much sum up US motives in Asia. wrt India's angle with PRC, as SSridhar garu said recently, "we cannot afford not to have an arms race with PRC." that pretty much sums up my opinions on PRC. we cannot afford not to watch them carefully and counter them when they cross lines that affect us. but the bigger picture of US laying the ground work for PRC aggression should not be forgotten.

US has emboldened PRC. But to a certain extent. In 2001, did you knwo the Pentagon secretly increased presence in NE India (under the cover of training), the kingdoms. It was revealed in a congressional testimony around that time. It was meant to clear signal to PRC to lay off the kingdoms (perhaps India could be included here as they did beef up presence in NE). While the US has emboldened PRC, there are red lines that Beijing knows not to cross - see PRC reaction to Gwadar for example - they are treading with little Gusto and jingoism, but very carefully.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 31 May 2011 22:16

^^^
hmmm....so US increasing presence in NE is a good thing? wow, i've never seen anybody on BRF write so glowingly about foreign countries increasing covert/overt presence in India.....

are you referring to training exercises with IA? these are routine, and US can't keep anybody stationed beyond the exercise duration. that would have absolutely no impact on PRC...if you are referring to covert influence, then that's bad for India, forget PRC......

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 31 May 2011 22:32

devesh wrote:^^^
hmmm....so US increasing presence in NE is a good thing? wow, i've never seen anybody on BRF write so glowingly about foreign countries increasing covert/overt presence in India.....

I haven't advocated anything, merely stated facts.

devesh wrote:are you referring to training exercises with IA? these are routine, and US can't keep anybody stationed beyond the exercise duration. that would have absolutely no impact on PRC...if you are referring to covert influence, then that's bad for India, forget PRC......

There is a reason why they started when they did (and other kingdoms in the neighbourhood). Go google for yourself. It had an impact on PRC as it was seen as a warning to Beijing not to interfere in Nepal and Bhutan specifically and to a lesser extent India.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 31 May 2011 22:42

One thing India needs to keep in mind is that while Uncle's balancing act viz-a-viz the TSP harms India, it is helpful to India viz-a-viz PRC. If India was more strategically active, then perhaps the US role would be less. However, a reactive India leaves a vacuum for others to exploit. US is trying to fill in that vacuum to hold PRC in check. However, while it might be good for India for the short term, it is not something India should count on in the longer term. India should step up to the plate to assert its strategic goals which will indirectly reduce the need for US assertiveness. But it might be a question of waiting for the right time.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 May 2011 22:47

JE Menon wrote:Sanku,

>>You are underestimating the danger JEM.

Having said that, it is possible that I’m underestimating the danger. My assessment at the moment is that it is not. Time will tell, no doubt.

The danger is there no matter what. Indian media is too secular to explain what goes inside the ME.
Indian population is not aware of the political implication of these money for Islamic doctrines

Here the entire population of the India of 1.2B is already under the LeT and Pakistan ideology since independence. There is no need to add another poison into the region since KSA is already inside Af Pak. India has to start work to remove the influence of KSA from Af Pak area.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 31 May 2011 22:58

>>But you dont really have "right of free speech" at least where Islam in India is concerned - do you? You cannot criticize even, any aspect of its functioning, ideology, doctrine, institutions. Do you see even a trace of such open debates anywhere in the media, public discourse, or even within the parliament?

I was referring to intra-community free speech to articulate both varying positions on Islamic matters, and differences of opinion and even challenges to outside opinion. Of course you are right that there is almost zero criticism by non-Muslims of Islam. The opposite is not true. Islamic preachers frequently criticise/deny the beliefs and practises of Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc – Christian priests do this too btw - both inside the country and outside. (However, this was not my point in the earlier post).

>>Sure, but then Deoband needed As Sudais to come and mediate about the "controversial" head. Look up the statements and position of Darul Ulum Nadyad about the importance of the "Arab" and "Arabic" in subcontinental Islam. Between these two Darul's they cover a lot of IM opinion.

To be frank, I don’t know what level of “mediation” this Sudais guy did. He probably lent some weight to one side over the other and that’s it. That’s not to underplay the visit. My point is that essentially it’s an exercise that is less harmful than it appears – and provides plenty of propagandu value for all parties involved, including GoI. There are much more harmful things these guys are doing, such as financing hardline groups, fringe madrassas which turn neighbourhoods into “don’t want to go” areas, etc. What would have been truly fun to watch would have been if As Sudais sat in Riyadh or wherever he is based and then pronounced some view on the Deoband chief’s suitability. That would have got GoI’s knickers in a right twist.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 May 2011 23:35

shyamd wrote: However, now that the US/KSA oil for security deal is pretty much over. The KSA is encouraging the PRC and India to partner with it for its security. If we back out, it is likely that the PRC navy is going have additional financing, bases in the peninsula etc. It doesn't help our energy security nor does it serve our strategic interests.

Let us assume KSA completely goes in PRC orbit. What are the implications of this to India?

- Will it stop KSA oil supplies to India? can PRC buy all of KSA's oil (~$350B). Can KSA influence other GCC members to deny oil supplies to India? What happens to PRC/Iran relationship?

- Will KSA kick out Indian workforce from KSA and GCC? Will it replace this work force with Chinese or Pakistanis? What would be the fate of KSA if and when it has more Chinese in KSA than TFTA araps?

from PRC side
- Will PRC allow the same level of islamic influence in its home land? will it invite mullahs from the holy masks to preach the right path to Chinese?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jun 2011 01:02

RamaY wrote:Let us assume KSA completely goes in PRC orbit. What are the implications of this to India?

- Will it stop KSA oil supplies to India? can PRC buy all of KSA's oil (~$350B). Can KSA influence other GCC members to deny oil supplies to India? What happens to PRC/Iran relationship?

- Will KSA kick out Indian workforce from KSA and GCC? Will it replace this work force with Chinese or Pakistanis? What would be the fate of KSA if and when it has more Chinese in KSA than TFTA araps?

from PRC side
- Will PRC allow the same level of islamic influence in its home land? will it invite mullahs from the holy masks to preach the right path to Chinese?

The consequences of such an alliance would be disastrous. India cannot allow China to build up a naval presence in the Indian Ocean and have a hostile naval power in IOR. This is our backyard. This is our strategic depth. I have commented on this earlier.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 01 Jun 2011 01:04

^ That is a good point RajeshA garu. Need to include that in my thought process. Thanks

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Jun 2011 01:15

Thanks RajeshA for spelling that out.

Its probably a good point to divulge what took place in Bahrain in order to understand the situation, US/GCC distrust.

The gist of what happened is this :

- US backed morally the initial protests in Bahren probably for sake of democracy. Gcc feels US wanted farsi control of peninsula/region. Shia is far more democratic and tolerant etc.

- KSA realised this and sent his boys to PRC, Desh, syria, egypt and many others for support. For e.g KSA signed some stategic partnership with PRC.

- Seeing that GCC will look elsewhere for support and things worked. They knew game was up. So US came and slapped intel of Iranian meddling in Bah on the table. This is first time ever that US gave intel that iran was indeed meddling. Normally US doesn't believe

- So, Bah/KSA asked for joint-gcc troops to get ready with full unkil support for the move. Meanwhile streets were taken over by shia militia etc. The Bah guys waited 2 full days till the Gcc guys arrived before sending the bah mil to deal with protesters.

- now farsi has tail between legs. Both unkil & farsi's were just check mated by arabiwalla's.

-opposition in bah now singing tune that they want pisss onlee.

- now desh agreed to send our boys if matter hits fan to "protect desi's" and also not get upto anything funny with tsp.

- they have agreement of 30k tspians to be on peninsula if things happen.

- ultimately, I think unkil's interests just took a massive hit after pharaoh issue. Desh will only gain for now.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Jun 2011 01:32

shyamd ji,

I think Iran has overplayed its hand at the moment.

They should have allowed 6-7 more years for the Shia forces in the Gulf to build up, and by that I mean the Shia in Iraq, in Al Ahsa Province of KSA, in Kuwait and in Bahrain. Seeing the protests and their success in Tunisia and Egypt, the Shia in Bahrain probably thought, it would be a good time to come out. Now they have disclosed themselves.

The Shia need to quieten down and quietly build their forces by letting America train the Shi'ite regiments of Iraq Army, and letting Hezbollah from Lebanon train the Mehdi Army, as well as the Saudi Hezbollah. More of the Saudi Shia should go to Najaf and Karbala and get some military training on their holidays.

In the mean time the Americans should remain close to the Saudis.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Jun 2011 01:44

RajeshA wrote:shyamd ji,

I think Iran has overplayed its hand at the moment.

The reason for the rift between Khamanei and Ahmadinejad was precisely over these issues. Ahmadinejad in the meeting to sack the intel minister told K that intelligence failed to take advantage of the situation and succeed. Instead they had their networks in Egypt, Kuwait dismantled. IRGC was left to organise raids in front of KSA consulate and embassies.

They should have allowed 6-7 more years for the Shia forces in the Gulf to build up, and by that I mean the Shia in Iraq, in Al Ahsa Province of KSA, in Kuwait and in Bahrain. Seeing the protests and their success in Tunisia and Egypt, the Shia in Bahrain probably thought, it would be a good time to come out. Now they have disclosed themselves.

The shia in the gulf already possess arms. The Iranians have been exporting them for a while, there are still caches there. They were split in the current unrest. Ask me another time to explain.

The Shia need to quieten down and quietly build their forces by letting America train the Shi'ite regiments of Iraq Army, and letting Hezbollah from Lebanon train the Mehdi Army, as well as the Saudi Hezbollah. More of the Saudi Shia should go to Najaf and Karbala and get some military training on their holidays.

Hezbollah, IRGC have been training Mahdi army for many years now. KSA/Kuwaiti/Bah hezbollah have been receiving training for a while - mainly in civil disobedience movements, infrastructure damages. Please read my special on this I posted many months ago. It is likely that this will only be used in the event of a war with Iran.

In the mean time the Americans should remain close to the Saudis.

The trust was lost in the recent unrest. However, the Obama strong speech towards Israel going back to 1967 was to target the GCC/KSA and get the relationship back on track. See 2001 August and what happened with US/KSA relations.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 01 Jun 2011 22:19

Iran is developing the Mahdi army and Badr Brigade (part of the supreme Islamic Council) into a professional militia/force, that is an alternate to Hezbollah (or as powerful as Hezbollah). This happened 2 weeks ago when Sadr and Hakim were summoned to Tehran. The IRGC told them the plan is to reorganise the militia and arm them. So intructors will be givign them training in weapons handling and Missile launching. So the aim is to develop a force that can intervene in Syria, Lebanon - in support of Hezbolah and augment hezbollah operations in setting up covert cells in Kuwait, Bahrain, KSA. So if Hezbollah can't the Mahdi army will take over setting up cells in GCC.

I suspect this is because of the integration of Jordan into the GCC, as this will augment GCC forces and be able to repel attack from Southern Iraq in the event of a war with Iran. The sunni's in Iraq are increasingly worried and are putting Maliki under pressure to give them the MoD ministerial portfolio. Maliki is trying to resist Iranian pressure too.

So where are things headed. An old article (KSA govt sanctioned at the highest levels):
Stepping Into Iraq
Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

Vice President Cheney with King Abdullah in Riyadh on Saturday.
Vice President Cheney with King Abdullah in Riyadh on Saturday. (Saudi Press Agency Via Associated Press)

By Nawaf Obaid
Wednesday, November 29, 2006

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.

Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support. Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.

Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn't attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene.

Just a few months ago it was unthinkable that President Bush would prematurely withdraw a significant number of American troops from Iraq. But it seems possible today, and therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.

Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias. Finally, Abdullah may decide to strangle Iranian funding of the militias through oil policy. If Saudi Arabia boosted production and cut the price of oil in half, the kingdom could still finance its current spending. But it would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today's high prices. The result would be to limit Tehran's ability to continue funneling hundreds of millions each year to Shiite militias in Iraq and elsewhere.

Both the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads are to blame for the current bloodshed in Iraq. But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don't run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do. Since approximately 65 percent of Iraq's population is Shiite, the Sunni Arabs, who make up a mere 15 to 20 percent, would have a hard time surviving any full-blown ethnic cleansing campaign.

What's clear is that the Iraqi government won't be able to protect the Sunnis from Iranian-backed militias if American troops leave. Its army and police cannot be relied on to do so, as tens of thousands of Shiite militiamen have infiltrated their ranks. Worse, Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, cannot do anything about this, because he depends on the backing of two major leaders of Shiite forces.

There is reason to believe that the Bush administration, despite domestic pressure, will heed Saudi Arabia's advice. Vice President Cheney's visit to Riyadh last week to discuss the situation (there were no other stops on his marathon journey) underlines the preeminence of Saudi Arabia in the region and its importance to U.S. strategy in Iraq. But if a phased troop withdrawal does begin, the violence will escalate dramatically.

In this case, remaining on the sidelines would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia's credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran's militarist actions in the region.

To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it: The consequences of inaction are far worse.

The writer, an adviser to the Saudi government, is managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh and an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect official Saudi policy.